Calculating Surface Density of the Universe Using the Shell Model

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around calculating the surface density of the universe using the shell model, with references to the Friedmann equations and the geometry of spheres and hyperspheres. Participants explore the implications of these models in the context of cosmology, density calculations, and the nature of higher-dimensional spaces.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions whether the shell model, which is likened to a spherical surface, can have a defined density and proposes a formula for surface density as m/4πr².
  • Another participant discusses the concept of hyperspheres and their volumes, suggesting that there may be parallels to the shell model in higher dimensions.
  • A disagreement arises regarding the derivation of the Friedmann equations, with one participant asserting that they are only consistently derived under specific conditions in general relativity, while another participant suggests a more heuristic approach.
  • There is a discussion about the implications of spatial curvature on density calculations, with one participant noting that if spatial curvature is small, changes in the Hubble parameter can be attributed to density.
  • One participant mentions using the shell model to derive useful results, specifically referencing the Hubble surface density and providing an estimate based on the Hubble mass and radius.
  • Another participant expresses confusion regarding the relationship between surface density and changes in the Hubble parameter, indicating a need for clarification.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the derivation and interpretation of the Friedmann equations, and there is no consensus on the nature of higher-dimensional spaces or the implications of the shell model. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the clarity of surface density calculations in relation to the Hubble parameter.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include potential misconceptions about the Friedmann equations, the abstract nature of higher dimensions, and the assumptions underlying density calculations based on the Hubble parameter.

Quarlep
Messages
257
Reaction score
4
You know friedmann equations derived from kinetic energy and potantial energy conservation.I found these shell model for universe.Here I am curious about something. This shell is like a surface of sphere isn't it.I mean it has only surface and that surface mass is m.And we made our equations based on that surface.
Is that shell has a density ? How can we calculatei it ?
I made like this m/4πr2surface

You can look attachment
 

Attachments

  • Snapshot.jpg
    Snapshot.jpg
    8.9 KB · Views: 573
Space news on Phys.org
The ordinary sphere, denoted S2 is surface of the 3d-solid ball. You have the area formula there. What about the hypersphere?
Analogous to 2d area, there should be a formula for the 3d volume of the surface of a 4d ball.

Wikiped has an article on areas and volumes of spheres in higher dimensions. I don't recall what they call it.

I do recall that the 3d volume of S3 of radius R is 2π2R3
 
Last edited:
Quarlep said:
You know friedmann equations derived from kinetic energy and potantial energy conservation.

No it is not. There is a cheap trick often used to heuristically argue this to undergraduate students, but the Friedman equation is only consistently derived in GR with the assumption of a homogeneous and isotropic universe. Misconceptions arising from this trick are generally severe, which is why I would typically argue against using it even for plausibility.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: George Jones
marcus said:
The ordinary sphere, denoted S2 is surface of the 3d-solid ball. You have the area formula there. What about the hypersphere?
Analogous to 2d area, there should be a formula for the 3d volume of the surface of a 4d ball.

Wikiped has an article on areas and volumes of spheres in higher dimensions. I don't recall what they call it.

I do recall that the 3d volume of S3 of radius R is 2π2R3
Are you talking about 4d shells ? I suppose In friedmann eq shell is a 3d sphere and it has a surface 4πr2
 
Last edited:
Quarlep said:
you understand me wrong I guess I am talking about sphere surface and its equal 4πr2 ordinary sphere no special case.Are you talking about 4d shells ? I suppose In friedmann eq shell is a 3d sphere and it has a surface 4πr2

Our posts crossed. I did not see yours. OK I misunderstood what you were asking about.
My post here is not relevant to your question and you can ignore it. But I will leave it in case it might help someone else understand the Friedmann equation positive curvature (finite S3 spatial volume) case.

We don't know that higher dimensions actually exist, may just be abstract conceptual tools we use, not physical.

The 4d "solid ball" may not be real, maybe only the 3d surface. But that might actually be the 3d space we live in. It is a possibility.

We do not know that the U is spatially finite. But that is one possible CASE. Let's consider that case. Suppose it is finite and suppose it is an S3 hypersphere, with abstract radius of curvature R (at this time).

Then the spatial volume at this time is 2π2R3 or about 20 R3

The radius of curvature can be estimated and a lower bound is estimated about 100 billion LY. At present.

If you cube that, you get 1000000 billion billion billion cubic light years. Then you multiply by 20. That is a very rough LOWER bound.
Observations show the curvature is so small that the radius of curvature must be ABOVE 100 billion LY. but we don't have an upper bound estimate, so far.

The average density is estimated differently, without working with total mass and total volume. One infer it by observing how the Hubble rate is changing. Because density affects both spatial curvature and the change over time of the H(T). If spatial curvature is very small, which it is, one can attribute all the change in H(T) to the density and write a simple equation (derived from Einstein GR equation) which allows to calculate the density just from looking at how H(T) is behaving.
 
Last edited:
marcus said:
Because density affects both spatial curvature and the change over time of the H(T). If spatial curvature is very small, which it is, one can attribute all the change in H(T) to the density and write a simple equation (derived from Einstein GR equation) which allows to calculate the density just from looking at how H(T) is behaving.
I am talking about surface density.Here I understand that change in H(t) affects universe density but I am looking surface I didnt understand
 
Is that shell has a density ? How can we calculatei it ?
Quarlep said:
You know friedmann equations derived from kinetic energy and potantial energy conservation.I found these shell model for universe.Here I am curious about something. This shell is like a surface of sphere isn't it.I mean it has only surface and that surface mass is m.And we made our equations based on that surface.
Is that shell has a density ? How can we calculatei it ?
I made like this m/4πr2surface

You can look attachment

Yes, you can use the shell model and derive results that are useful - generally for a surface density engineers use the symbol sigma. And here is a really interesting fact if you use the Hubble parameters which are built into the Friedman equations. Taking the estimate of Hubble mass in the range of 1.5 x 10^53 kgm and the Hubble radius as 1.1 x 10^26 meters, the Hubble surface density is one kgm per square meter.
 
Thanks that's really help me
yogi said:
Yes, you can use the shell model and derive results that are useful - generally for a surface density engineers use the symbol sigma. And here is a really interesting fact if you use the Hubble parameters which are built into the Friedman equations. Taking the estimate of Hubble mass in the range of 1.5 x 10^53 kgm and the Hubble radius as 1.1 x 10^26 meters, the Hubble surface density is one kgm per square meter.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
3K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 134 ·
5
Replies
134
Views
12K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
4K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K